2 March 2015. Source:

http://magicvalley.com/business/agriculture/china-s-view-of-genetically-modified-hay-hits-american-growers/article_9bfe461a-0e06-5cbe-9bf7-632891adf036.html

Most of the debate around genetically modified crops has centered around the impact to the human food chain, yet China continues to disrupt feed markets with its zero tolerance for genetically modified crops.

China began banning imports of U.S. corn in late 2013 and then dried distillers grains over loads of corn were confirmed to have a trait approved for planting in the U.S. since 2010. That trait was finally approved for import by China in late 2014. But that year of uncertainty disrupted global corn markets and led both farmers and grain traders to sue a major seed company for selling the U.S. Department of Agriculture-approved seed.

Now alfalfa growers are feeling the pinch. China has blacklisted hay imports from three U.S. exporters after finding hay containing low levels of Roundup Ready hay. China’s import policy is not to accept commodities with low results, even in the parts per million range. Overall exports of U.S. alfalfa have fallen 12 percent since China started refusing hay but other data shows exports to China are actually up by 22 percent.

While it’s certainly any country’s right to set a zero tolerance policy, it’s nearly impossible to achieve based on sampling and laboratory procedures, experts say.

“Is zero genetically engineered hay possible?” asked Dan Putnam during the 2015 Idaho Hay and Forage Conference held in Burley. Yes, but one cannot guarantee it or test for it, the University of California Davis extension forage specialist told hay growers. “To assure GE-free hay you must test every single gram of a hay stack and then there’s nothing left to the feed the animals.”

Theoretically, one or two stems of GE hay in a 200-ton hay lot is enough to exceed China’s zero tolerance should those stems end up in the tested sample.

He believes both GE and non-GE hay can co-exist in the marketplace. But to reach that place, the industry will have to adopt non-GE protocol similar to the organic certification program.

Putnam outlined his ideas for defining non-GE hay by establishing a non-detect level of 0.9 percent or below. That’s similar to the level that Europe uses for human food. Ingredients below that tolerance are allowed to be labeled as GMO-free…

Next, he suggests that the market be differentiated into GE hay, conventional hay for nonsensitive markets (dairies and feedlots) and non-GE for sensitive markets (China). Growers selling hay into the first two segments can continue business as usual, but growers who know their hay is headed for sensitive markets should start following a set protocol to assure buyers their hay meets an accepted low-level threshold…

3 March 2015 – Source: www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/02/mouse-gene-could-help-produce-tb-resistant-cattle-study-shows

Scientists have created the first tuberculosis-resistant cattle using genetic engineering techniques. The advance could pave the way for genetically modified farm animals that would be automatically protected against disease, reducing the need for culls of infected herds and the blanket use of antibiotic drugs.

The study is the first to show that when cattle are genetically modified to carry a protective mouse gene, they become more difficult to infect and are largely shielded from the damaging symptoms of the disease….

In the latest study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, scientists from the Chinese agriculture ministry created 23 genetically modified calves, 13 of which survived into adulthood. The team used a gene editing tool, known as TALEN, which allows scientists to delete naturally occurring genes and insert new ones with a high degree of precision.

In laboratory tests, they showed that the Mycobacterium bovis bacterium, which causes TB, multiplied far less effectively in the presence of immune cells taken from the GM cattle, which had been given a mouse gene that was known to be protective against TB.

The scientists deliberately introduced the TB bacteria into the lungs of three of the GM cattle and three control cattle and compared the effects. One of the GM cattle showed no sign of the illness and the other two showed far fewer lesions than the control cattle in their lungs, spleen and liver, when they were dissected several weeks later.

In a second transmission test, nine GM cattle and nine control cows were housed with infected animals. Six of the GM cattle were not infected and the other three again showed minimal symptoms compared with all nine of the control animals, whose lungs showed extensive damage.

Professor Mike Coffey, a livestock expert at Scotland’s Rural College, said: “This doesn’t produce completely TB-resistant cows, but the aim is to raise the general resistance. This would slow down any spread of the disease and slowly reduce the national level in herds.”…

13/02/15. Source: www.arcticapples.com/blog/neal/us-deregulate-arctic®-apples

U.S. to deregulate Arctic® apples!

Okanagan Specialty Fruits is thrilled to share big news – the first nonbrowning Arctic® apple varieties are about to be deregulated in the United States!

This milestone is nearly two decades in the making, as Arctic® Golden and Arctic® Granny apples represent OSF’s first products since our inception in 1996. We could not have achieved this without our small-but-mighty, grower-led team and all our supporters in the agriculture and biotech industries. And, of course, all the consumers who told us they can’t wait for nonbrowning apples!

Earlier today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Services (APHIS) announced its decision to deregulate the first two Arctic varieties, and it is expected their final environmental assessment (EA) and plant pest risk assessment (PPRA) will be published soon.

For our fellow growers, this means that Arctic trees can now be purchased and grown just like any other apple trees (so let us know if you’re interested in planting!). For consumers, it means that we will be working hard to get as many trees in the ground as possible so that you’ll be able to purchase Arctic apples in stores within the next few years.

Since it takes apple trees a number of years to produce significant amounts of fruit, it will likely be 2016 before any Arctic Granny or Arctic Golden apples are available for small, test-markets. Following that, we expect increasing amounts of fruit each year, including additional nonbrowning varieties like Arctic® Gala and Arctic® Fuji.

We’re very excited for everyone who touches apples to experience the benefits of nonbrowning apples, and encourage you to read about the significant value they offer to growers, packers, freshcut and traditional processors, foodservice, retailers, and most of all, consumers.

The supply-chain can feel confident knowing that Arctic apples are likely the most tested apples in existence. Rigorously reviewed by multiple regulatory bodies, all evaluations reach the same conclusion – Arctic apples present no unique risks and are just as safe and healthful as any other apple.

Thanks again for your continued support of Arctic apples, biotechnology, the apple industry and our goal of helping people to eat more apples. We hope you will be enjoying the benefits of nonbrowning apples very soon!

28 January 2015. Source: isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/49/pressrelease/default.asp

A record 181.5 million hectares of GM crops were grown across 28 countries in 2014 according to the latest report released by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA). The 20 developing and eight industrial countries where GM crops are produced represent more than 60 per cent of the world’s population.

Since 1996, more than 10 food and fibre GM crops have been approved and commercialised around the world, ranging from major commodities such as soybean, corn and cotton, to fruits and vegetables like papaya, eggplant and, potato. The crops have been modified for traits such as drought tolerance, insect and disease resistance, herbicide tolerance and increased nutrition and food quality.

The USA once again dominates production, growing 73.1 million hectares of GM soybean, corn, cotton, canola, sugarbeet, alfalfa, papaya and squash, followed by Brazil and Argentina (soybean, corn and cotton), India (cotton) and Canada (canola, maize, soybean, sugar beet. Australia is ranked 13^th in the list, growing approximately 0.5 million hectares of GM cotton and canola.

The report highlights key benefits derived from GM crops, including:

• alleviation of poverty and hunger by boosting the income of risk-averse small, resource-poor farmers around the world;
• increased production valued at US$133 billion;
• in the period 1996 to 2012 pesticide use decreased significantly saving approximately 500 million kg of active ingredient;
• in 2013 alone, crop plantings lowered carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to removing 12.4 million cars from the road for one year.

21 January 2015. Source: Stock Journal, http://www.stockjournal.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/marsh-v-baxter-appeal-imminent/2721428.aspx?src=rss

Two appeal hearings in the Marsh v Baxter case have been scheduled from March 23 to 25 in the Court of Appeal for the Western Australian Supreme Court.

Kojonup organic farmer Steve Marsh and wife Sue have been embroiled in a long-running legal challenge against their neighbour Mike Baxter, for alleged financial damages caused from losing their organic certification four years ago.

About 70 per cent of Mr Marsh’s organic farm was decertified when Genetically Modified (GM) canola swathes were found in his organic wheat crop in late 2010.

The Marshes attempted to sue Mr Baxter for $85,000 compensation and to win a permanent injunction that would prevent him growing GM canola – but Justice Ken Martin comprehensively rejected the claims.

A two-week trial was held in February last year in the WA Supreme Court with a judgement handed down on May 28.

Justice Martin’s 150-page judgment awarded in Mr Baxter’s favour, rejecting assertions GM canola was unsafe while dismissing both the Marshes’ causes of action in common law negligence and private nuisance…

An appeal against the main judgement in the case has been scheduled for hearing on March 23 and 24.

It’s understood the plaintiff and defendant will be allocated one day each during the two-day program to submit their arguments before a three-judge panel.

The panel is likely to engage in robust interaction with barristers representing both sides, questioning details and merits, of their appeal submissions.

Another hearing set for March 25 will appeal against the cost orders made by Justice Martin in September last year which awarded costs totalling $804,000 in Mr Baxter’s favour…

24 January 2015. Source: Ghana Web, http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/business/artikel.php?ID=343841

Researchers in Ghana say they are recording favourable outcomes in the trials of genetically modified (GM) rice in the country.

The confined field trials started in April 2013 at Nobewam in the Ashanti region, after receiving approval from the National Biosafety Committee (NBC).

The fourth successive experiment of the Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE) rice is being conducted by the Crops Research Institute (CRI) of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR).

Principal Investigator, Dr. Maxwell Asante, says the project has already identified a lead event which will give at least a 15 percent yield advantage over non-GM version of the planted rice.

“If the lead event is confirmed, we will request for permission from the NBC to allow it to be grown by farmers in Ghana after testing. The genes that make the GM rice nitrogen-use efficient will then be transferred to other varieties in Ghana through conventional breeding methods,” he stated.

… The next set of experiment will involve the evaluation of the triple-stack gene rice plants to identify lead events in nitrogen-use efficiency, water-use efficiency and salt tolerant genetically modified rice – dubbed “NEWEST Rice”.

This will especially help farmers deal with the effects of climate change and expand rice cultivation to areas previously not supported.

Ghana’s GM or NEWEST Rice is projected to go commercial within the next three to five years.

Three confined field trials of rice, cowpea and cotton are currently being evaluated in Ghana in compliance with the Biosafety Act 2011, Act 831, which regulates GMOs.

14 January 2015 Source: National Geographic – http://theplate.nationalgeographic.com/2015/01/14/potato-possible-carcinogenic/

“Innate” is a weird name for a potato. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, innate means native, inborn, or natural, which most potatoes are, but which J.R. Simplot’s officially named Innate potato isn’t quite.

The Innate potato, recently approved for commercial planting by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is a genetically engineered potato tweaked to resist bruising and browning. It has also been modified to contain 50 percent to 70 percent less of the amino acid asparagine, which is converted to acrylamide, a possible carcinogen, when potatoes are heated at high temperatures like frying to make French fries. The name Innate was conferred by Simplot to indicate that—despite that fact that the potato is genetically modified—its genome, unlike those of many modified crop plants, contains nothing but plain potato.

Genetically modified (GM) food plants are often transgenic—that is, they contain inserted gene sequences from wildly unrelated organisms, among them bacteria, jellyfish, rats, mice, spiders, and scorpions. The Innate potato, however, was developed using a technique called gene silencing or RNA interference, a natural process used by everybody’s cells to regulate gene expression. Biochemically, this is the equivalent of flipping a switch from ON to OFF—in the case of the Innate potato, shutting down the manufacture of a pair of enzymes: polyphenol oxidase, the causative agent of browning in potatoes, avocados, and apples, and asparagine synthetase, essential for making asparagine, the precursor of acrylamide.

Though it’s not certain that acrylamide is a problem for people, researchers have shown that rats, fed huge amounts of it, develop cancer; and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Center for Science in the Public Interest agree that, given the choice, the less of it we eat, the better. Bruising and browning, though not a threat health-wise, have other unpleasant effects. First, we don’t like the way brownish potatoes look; and second, they put a sizeable dent in our collective pocketbooks. An estimated 400 million pounds of bruised and brown potatoes are chucked each year at a cost of $90 million to producers, most of which, inevitably, is passed along to consumers (us).

Simplot’s hope is that the Innate potato will be snapped up by the potato processing industry—the people who make French fries and potato chips—which is where about a third of the annual U.S. potato crop ends up. It’s also a good possibility for pre-cut fresh potatoes, which now can only be sold frozen, since ordinary fresh-cut potatoes turn a yucky brown in the bag…

A Tale of Two GMO Transplant Techniques

12 November 2014 Source: http://magazine.good.is/articles/transgenic-vs-cisgenic-gmo

Ever since scientists announced they could place functional foreign genes into plant cells some 30 years ago, people have been arguing about the pros and cons of genetically modified crops. On one hand, GM crops produce larger, heartier yields, and could help solve the world’s food shortage problem. On the other, something about eating a tomato whose genes have been tampered with can be a little unsettling and, well, unnatural.

Not that the biotech industry has been paying much attention to consumer’s unease. Almost as soon as scientists announced that plants could be genetically altered to suit human needs, companies began scrambling to create new, modified organisms as quickly and efficiently as possible. In the last 15 years, herbicide-tolerant and pest-resistant crops have become the standard in the United States and a handful of other Western countries, and have almost entirely replaced conventional planting methods. (Europeans have displayed slightly more skepticism in this regard—GM crops remain banned in many EU countries.) …

Two of the techniques for transplanting genes are transgenesis and cisgenesis. Both involve introducing one or more genes into a plant. However, cisgenesis involves only genes from the same species or a cross-compatible species, a process that could otherwise happen—though over a considerably longer period of time—through breeding or other natural methods. Transgenesis, however, combines genes between unrelated species in a way that could never happen on its own. Like cold-water fish genes, which have been inserted into strawberry plants to prevent the fruit from freezing. Obviously there is a reluctance to accept GM foods that have been created with transgenesis rather than cisgenesis, because these are viewed as ‘unnatural’.

However, while both are used in what are called “genetically modified” crops, there is no way to tell which GM foods have been created via transgenesis versus cisgenesis, as international GMO regulations do not discriminate between the two methods. Recent research into these two techniques suggests that both are, scientifically speaking, safe and acceptable means to creating GM crops. However, a wider implementation of cisgenic techniques could ease anxieties about transgenesis and lead to increased consumer acceptance. “There is reasonable evidence that consumers are more comfortable with the use of genes from within the same species than transgenes. However, future developments regarding the generation and commercialization of cisgenic crops will depend on application of less stringent regulation to these crops worldwide,” a 2013 report on the techniques concluded.

25 November 2014. Source: www.capitalpress.com/Nation_World/Nation/20141125/new-gmo-potato-avoids-usda-regulation

A new potato that’s engineered with gene deletion doesn’t have to be regulated by USDA.

The USDA’s deregulation of J.R. Simplot’s GM potatoes recently generated much publicity, but another GM potato was quietly cleared for commercialisation without undergoing that regulatory process.

Cellectis Plant Sciences, a subsidiary of a French pharmaceutical company, has genetically modified potatoes to experience less sugar buildup during cold storage, thereby helping to preserve their quality. The crop also contains less of a potentially cancer-causing compound.

These traits are similar to Simplot’s “Innate” potato but Cellectis’ product wasn’t subject to the same environmental assessments and public notice and comment requirements.

The difference is that Simplot used agrobacterium, a plant pest, to transfer genes from wild and cultivated potatoes, which causes the Innate variety to fall under USDA’s regulatory purview.

Under the USDA’s interpretation of federal law, which has been upheld in court, the agency’s authority over genetically engineered crops is limited to those that are potential plant pests.

In the case of Cellectis’ potato, the company did rely on a protein from a blight-causing bacteria to remove unwanted genetic material from the variety.

However, that bacterial protein wasn’t incorporated into the potato’s genes, which convinced the USDA that the variety isn’t a plant pest and doesn’t require a permit for field release or interstate movement, according to documents recently released by the agency.

“We knocked out DNA sequences that inactivated a gene,” said Dan Voytas, chief science officer for Cellectis.

Cellectis hopes the variety will gain broader market acceptance than previous genetically engineered varieties that were deregulated by USDA because the technology simply removes genetic material, rather than inserting it from other species, he said.

Roughly 10-15 percent of potatoes are lost during storage due to sugar buildup, and the company hopes to significantly cut that waste, Voytas said.

Before it can make actual claims about waste reduction, Cellectis must first conduct large-scale tests that are now possible due to USDA’s decision, he said.

The company expects it will take several years before enough of its potatoes are available for commercial production, and it still plans to clear the variety with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, he said.

Also, Cellectis will seek regulatory approval in foreign countries that import U.S. potatoes, Voytas said. “There’s still quite a bit of effort in front of us.”

10 November 2014. Source: US Government Department of Agriculture

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/fedregister/BRS_20141110b.pdf and http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/fedregister/BRS_20141110a.pdf

– INNATE POTATO

We are advising the public of our determination that potatoes designated as InnateTM potatoes (events E12, E24, F10, F37, J3, J55, J78, G11, H37, and H50), which have been genetically engineered for low acrylamide potential (acrylamide is a human neurotoxicant and potential carcinogen that may form in potatoes and other starchy foods under certain cooking conditions) and reduced black spot bruise, are no longer considered a regulated article under our regulations governing the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms. Our determination is based on our evaluation of data submitted by J.R. Simplot Company in its petition for a determination of nonregulated status, our analysis of available scientific data, and comments received from the public in response to our previous notices announcing the availability of the petition for nonregulated status and its associated environmental assessment and plant pest risk assessment. This notice also announces the availability of our written determination and finding of no significant impact.

– ALFALFA [LUCERNE]

We are advising the public of our determination that an alfalfa event developed by the Monsanto Company and Forage Genetics International, designated as event KK179, which has been genetically engineered to express reduced levels of guaiacyl lignin, is no longer considered a regulated article under our regulations governing the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms. Our determination is based on our evaluation of data submitted by the Monsanto Company and Forage Genetics International in its petition for a determination of nonregulatory status, our analysis of available scientific data, and comments received from the public in response to our previous notices announcing the availability of the petition for nonregulated status and its associated environmental assessment and plant pest risk assessment. This notice also announces the availability of our written determination and finding of no significant impact.

Herbicide tolerant genetically modified (GM) canola has been grown in NSW and Victoria since 2009 and in Western Australia since 2010. The tables below provide information regarding the hectarage for each year, a state-by-state breakdown and the percentage of GM canola grown in each state as well as nationally.

(PDF attached – AusCanolaFigures_2014)

 By Year (hectares)

By State (%)

Source: Australian Oilseeds Federation and Monsanto Australia

1 November 2014

Source: www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/cropping/general-news/govt-gutless-on-gm-abca/2716048.aspx?storypage=0

AGRICULTURAL Biotechnology Council of Australia (ABCA) chair Ken Matthews says some Australian governments are “gutless” when it comes to giving farmers access to genetically modified (GM) crops.

The former secretary of both the agriculture and transport departments made the no-nonsense observation in a detailed outline of global and domestic attitudes on biotechnology at the National Farmers’ Federation Congress in Canberra last week.

Mr Matthews summed up by saying Australia suffers from not having a more objective, science-based discussion about agricultural biotechnology.

“It’s really important that Australia has practicing farmers speak up for agricultural biotechnology because it’s practicing farmers that will be persuasive.”

The ongoing anti-GM campaign is one of the “big risks” facing the technology’s development, he said.

“There is a great suspicion of science and scientists in public debate in Australia and there has been a very effective campaign by NGOs (non-government organisations) which has influenced public opinion.

“As a result, what worries me is that environmentally responsible farmers – who tend in many other areas to be leaders of farm opinion – can often be ambivalent about GM.

“The pro-GM constituency among farmers is therefore not as strong as it could be in Australia.”

Governments need to lead

Mr Matthews said attitudes held by the general public, consumers, environmentalists and media were also central problems in the GM debate.

But his strongest criticism was reserved for various governments that refuse to allow GM crops to be cultivated, despite overwhelming scientific evidence.

“Some governments in Australia are – and I use this word carefully – gutless,” he said.

“There are total bans on GM in South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT,” he said.

“There are moratoriums in WA and NSW but there are certainly exemptions for that. In my view they (total bans) aren’t rationally based; they aren’t properly founded in science.

…

Need to build trust

Mr Matthews said Australia grew GM canola and GM cotton and had great strengths in the area, with a world class regulatory system and plant breeding expertise.

But he said a three-part plan was needed to help overcome the slow progress of biotechnology development.

He said a constituency of biotechnology supporters was needed to build understanding of the potential benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and society as a whole.

“We need to build community confidence and trust in Australia’s regulatory arrangements,” he said.

“We do need to be respectful of ethical concerns about biotechnology, but at the same time we need to give voice to the beneficiaries, and I think of those kids in Africa.

“When people are talking grandly about ethical concerns about biotechnology I worry about starving kids in Africa.

“We need to focus research more on benefits to consumers, to the environment, to society and we need to find some champions.”

Source: The Telegraph (UK), 30 October 2014

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/geneticmodification/11196045/Genetically-modified-crops-are-the-future-and-must-not-be-blocked-say-scientists.html

The widespread cultivation of genetically modified crops is the only way to feed the world and governments must stop blocking trials, a consortium of Europe’s most well-renowned plant scientists have claimed.

In an open letter to the European Parliament ahead of a debate on GM next week, more than 20 of the most eminent botanists and ecologists in the world warn that it is time to put fears of genetic modification aside and begin widespread field trials. They call for a ‘fundamental revision of GM regulation’ which, they claim, is based not on science, but on politics.

Signatory Professor Jonathan Jones, of the Sainsbury Laboratory in Norwich, says British scientists are creating world-changing crops, but they are being blocked by Europe. The authors call for Europe to allow individual countries to opt out of growing crops. It would mean that countries like Britain could begin commercial production while those who oppose the idea, like France, would not be forced to follow suit.

The proposals will go before the European Parliament next week.

Source: ABC Rural, 29 October 2014.

www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-29/sa-farming-group-shifts-field-day2c-to-embrace-gmos/5850844

A South Australian farming group has moved its field day over the border into Victoria, so producers can legally trial genetically modified (GM) crop varieties.

A moratorium on GM crops in South Australia has some grain producers concerned they are being left behind in tackling weeds and improving yields.

Mackillop Farm Management Group last year held its annual field day at a trial site at Frances.

This year it was moved a few kilometres east, still in the border town of Frances, where GM canola could legally be trialled.

Research and operations manager Felicity Turner says most SA farmers are focussed on weed prevention, but long-term concerns surround great opportunities opening up to GM farmers.

“It’s not just the herbicide technologies. It’s a lot of other disease resistances and pod-shattering and things like that,” she said.

“Unfortunately [seed companies’ breeding programs] are only heading in that direction with regards to [GM] Roundup Ready.

“As a state, potentially we’re going to be left behind with regards to other options not just with regard to herbicide technologies.”

National canola manager of Pacific Seeds, Justin Kudnig, told the group: “If we don’t go down this path, nature’s going to beat us”.

“The bottom line to us is dollars per acre and we can see a greater return per acre if we can get this technology.”

“You need to stay ahead of pests, you need to stay ahead of diseases, you need to stay ahead of all the negatives that are out there in the environment,” he said…

Source: WLRN Miami, South Florida. 29 October 2014

http://wlrn.org/post/keys-prepare-genetically-modified-mosquito-release

Two storage rooms at the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District’s Marathon building are being converted into a temporary laboratory to raise genetically modified mosquitoes.

If the FDA approves, the Keys could become the first in the U.S. to release the mosquitos, which are intended to reduce the population of aedes aegypti mosquitoes that carry diseases including dengue fever, malaria and chikungunya.

The British company Oxitec is building the lab and would handle the raising and releasing of the mosquitos, pending approval from the FDA and the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District. The current plan is for a test release of genetically engineered male mosquitoes sometime next spring in the Key Haven neighborhood on a small peninsula about five miles from Key West. The idea is the male mosquitos would pass along a lethal gene, making offspring nonviable.

The Keys haven’t had a reported case of dengue since 2010. But Stephen Smith, chairman of the elected board that oversees mosquito control in the Keys, said the release might be necessary as a preventive measure against dengue and chikungunya, which recently appeared on the South Florida mainland.

“I’m not preaching doom and gloom. I just want us to be ready,” Smith said. “It’s been successfully tested in the Caribbean. It’s been tested in Brazil. It’s been tested in the Cayman Islands with great results. It’s a tool that we can keep in our arsenal and maybe we won’t have to use at all.”

The Keys Mosquito Control District is planning public meetings with representatives from Oxitec and the FDA in November for Key Haven residents and in December for Key West. The district is distributing a flyer with information for Key Haven residents this week.